DOCSLIB.ORG

Iran: Operational Analysis of Air, SAM and TBM Forces Abdullah Toukan and Anthony H

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Iran: Operational Analysis of Air, SAM and TBM Forces Abdullah Toukan and Anthony H 1800 K Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: 1.202.775.3270 Fax: 1.202.775.3199 Email: [email protected] Web: www.csis.org/burke/reports GCC - Iran: Operational Analysis of Air, SAM and TBM Forces Abdullah Toukan and Anthony H. Cordesman Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy August 20, 2009 Slide Introduction 4 Summary & Recommendations 15 Geostrategic Importance of the Gulf Region 22 GCC and Iran Order of Battle 32 Part I: U.S. Air Force Doctrine; Definition of Functions and Missions 38 Offensive Counterair Missions (OCA) 41 Air to Ground Mission Profiles and Weapons Systems 44 SAM Air Defense Systems and SEAD 54 Defensive Counterair Missions (DCA) 62 Air to Air Mission Profiles and Weapon Systems 67 Counterspace: Offensive and Defensive Operations 76 Information Operations 77 Intelligence Surveillance &Reconnaissance (ISR) Doctrine 78 Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAV’s) 80 Defensive Counterair Operations (DCA) 86 2 Slide Missions and Force Effectiveness 91 OCA Airfield Attack Analysis 94 Air Defense and SEAD Analysis 101 Counterland Operations Analysis (CAS & AI) 108 MRAAM Engagement Analysis 113 GCC-Iran Force Allocation Matrices 118 Theater Ballistic Missiles 121 Part II: Iran Asymmetric Warfare 135 Appendix I: Air to Air Missiles 145 Appendix II: Medium Range SAM Systems Kill Envelopes 150 Appendix III: Air to Air BVR Combat Analysis 163 Appendix IV: Characteristics of High Explosives 167 Appendix V: Probability of Kill vs CEP and Lethal Range 172 Appendix VI: Notes on Security Arrangements 177 (Common, Collective, Cooperative, Comprehensive) 3 Introduction 4 Perceptions of the Iranian Threat • It is in the view of many analysts that with the occupation of Iraq, Iran now sees new opportunities to enhance its strategic interests and to reemerge as the key power in the Arabian Gulf region. They have enumerated five threats to the region posed by Iran: o Ambition to acquire nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles; o Support for International Terrorism; o Opposition to the Middle East peace process and its rising political influence there; o Offensive military buildup; o Threat to the stability of the Gulf States. Iran has also annexed the islands of Abu Musa, which dominate the entrance to the Straits of Hormuz. • Iran looks upon Nuclear Weapons and Ballistic Missiles as: o attractive alternatives to expensive modern conventional weapons for Power Projection and Deterrence purposes; o a means to increase so-called status and prestige. • As a response, the U.S. policy objective has been not to allow the Arabian Gulf region to be dominated by a hegemonic Iran. The United States believes that Iran cannot try to dominate the Gulf region as long as a U.S. military power is present. Iran maintains that the U.S. is actually positioning itself to confront Iran, and is building military bases to be used as launching pads for a possible strike against it. 5 How Iran views its National Security • Many believe that a confrontational approach to Iran will drive it to justify the pursuit of a nuclear capability as a deterrent. The Iranian National Security Doctrine is based on the perceptions that: o Iran as having a leadership role in the Arab and non-Arab Muslim world, and to have a dominant role in the Arabian Gulf region especially in any GCC security arrangements; o The occupation of Iraq by the U.S. and the presence of the U.S. Fifth Fleet offshore in the waters of the Gulf, and the past U.S. declared policy for “regime change” in Iran, as a grave threat to its National Security; o Israeli intentions to destabilize Iran and attack its nuclear facilities, which Iran claims to be for the purpose of producing nuclear power; o Iran is worried about unfriendly neighbors surrounding it, including a nuclear armed Pakistan. U.S. - Russia • The U.S. – Russia nuclear agreement, July 6, 2009, is considered by many as a first step in a broader effort to reduce the threat of Nuclear Weapons and to prevent their further spread. President Obama in his remarks hailed the arms agreement as an example for the world as he pursued a broader agenda aimed at countering – and eventually eliminating the spread of Nuclear Weapons. • President Obama views Russia as an influential partner willing to help fight the proliferation of nuclear weapons mainly in Iran and North Korea. It has become clear that more collaboration between the US and Russia on nuclear non-proliferation could increase pressure on Iran, which has always taken advantage and benefitted from any disagreements between the two countries. • It is believed that Russia could be a key player in preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapons program. However, Russia seems to have a different perception of the threat and has not shown any interest so far in applying pressure on Iran. Obama managed to link the BMD in Eastern Europe with the emerging Iranian Nuclear Threat and Long Range Ballistic Missile capability. 6 U.S. Position • The Obama Administration has been sending messages to Iran trying to dissuade it from pursuing Nuclear Weapons. The message is that the Iranian Nuclear Weapons program will: o not advance its security; o not achieve its goal of enhancing its power both regionally and globally; o spark an arms race in the region; o cause Iran to become more insecure. • The current U.S. position towards Iran is based upon the choice of: o Further sanctions and containment if Iran continues its pursuit of Nuclear Weapons or ; o Start a dialog with wider economic incentives if it abandons its nuclear weapons program. • In the event that Iran continues to pursue Nuclear Weapons the U.S. Secretary of State outlined how the U.S. might deal with a such a policy: o Washington would arm allies in the region, and extend a “defense umbrella”; o Iran possessing nuclear weapons would be unacceptable to the U.S.; o Iran crossing the Nuclear Threshold would not make Iran safe; o By extending assistance and a defense umbrella, Iran will not be able to intimidate and dominate its neighboring countries in particular the GCC, as Iran believes it can, once it possesses nuclear weapons. 7 Iranian Response • Iran has a 2,500 km coastline along the waters of the Arabian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, which is the only route to export oil, and around 95 percent of its foreign exchange revenues comes from exporting oil. • In addition to viewing itself a regional power, Iran’s aim is to keep the waters free from any foreign military presence and prevent outside countries from playing a role in shaping the future political and security architecture of the Gulf region. • Iran has recently been active diplomatically trying to convince the GCC States, with regard to the U.S. and other Western Powers, that their security would be better ensured by signing mutual security agreements with it. Iran has been stressing that for longer term regional security and stability, Iran and the GCC states should replace the reliance on foreign military presence and intervention. • With regard to a possible Israeli or U.S. attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, the following is what has been written on the possible Iranian military response: o Immediate retaliation using its ballistic missiles on Israel. Multiple launches of Shahab-3 including the possibility of CBR warheads against Tel Aviv, Israeli military and civilian centers, and Israeli suspected nuclear weapons sites; o Using proxy groups such as Hezbollah or Hamas to attack Israel proper with suicide bombings, covert CBR attacks, and rocket attacks from southern Lebanon; o Give rise to regional instability and conflict as well as terrorism; o Destabilizing Iraq through the Shia against US occupation, further arming insurgency groups when possible; o Support and upgrade Taliban capabilities in Afghanistan; o Increase the threat of asymmetric attacks against American interests and allies in the region; o Target U.S. and Western shipping in the Gulf, and possibly attempt to interrupt the flow of oil through the Gulf. Danger is not simply a cut-off in the supply of oil from Iran, the GCC, or the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, but a prolonged threat to the wider Gulf region. 8 Israel and U.S. Position on a Military Strike against Iranian Nuclear Facilities • The Israeli time frame as to when Iran would have a Nuclear Weapon is between 2009 and 2013, whereas the U.S. time frame is after 2013. Israel further states that Iran should not be allowed to obtain any nuclear capabilities that could eventually allow it to produce nuclear weapons. • Israel views Iran as an Existential Threat and must be dealt with in the immediate future with a Military Strike against it’s main nuclear facilities. Israel would rather see the U.S. join it in preventing Iran from developing the capability rather than the U.S. arming its allies in the region and providing a defense umbrella. • In the month of March, Haaretz Service on March 12 reported the following statements by U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates: “The current American administration as well as those that follow it will exercise extreme caution before launching a pre-emptive military strike against an enemy state.” “I think one of the biggest lessons learned in this is, if you are going to contemplate preempting an attack, you had better be very confident of the intelligence that you have” Gates further said “They’re (Iran) not close to a stockpile, they’re not close to a weapon at this point, and so there is some time.” Gate’s concludes in other interviews that any military option to force Iran to abandon its controversial nuclear program would have merely temporary ineffective results, and that imposing sanctions on Iran made more sense.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Prepared by Textore, Inc. Peter Wood, David Yang, and Roger Cliff November 2020
    AIR-TO-AIR MISSILES CAPABILITIES AND DEVELOPMENT IN CHINA Prepared by TextOre, Inc. Peter Wood, David Yang, and Roger Cliff November 2020 Printed in the United States of America by the China Aerospace Studies Institute ISBN 9798574996270 To request additional copies, please direct inquiries to Director, China Aerospace Studies Institute, Air University, 55 Lemay Plaza, Montgomery, AL 36112 All photos licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license, or under the Fair Use Doctrine under Section 107 of the Copyright Act for nonprofit educational and noncommercial use. All other graphics created by or for China Aerospace Studies Institute Cover art is "J-10 fighter jet takes off for patrol mission," China Military Online 9 October 2018. http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/view/2018-10/09/content_9305984_3.htm E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.airuniversity.af.mil/CASI https://twitter.com/CASI_Research @CASI_Research https://www.facebook.com/CASI.Research.Org https://www.linkedin.com/company/11049011 Disclaimer The views expressed in this academic research paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Government or the Department of Defense. In accordance with Air Force Instruction 51-303, Intellectual Property, Patents, Patent Related Matters, Trademarks and Copyrights; this work is the property of the U.S. Government. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights Reproduction and printing is subject to the Copyright Act of 1976 and applicable treaties of the United States. This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This publication is provided for noncommercial use only.
    [Show full text]
  • Progress in Delivering the British Army's Armoured
    AVF0014 Written evidence submitted by Nicholas Drummond “Progress in Delivering the British Army’s Armoured Vehicle Capability.” Nicholas Drummond Defence Industry Consultant and Commentator Aura Consulting Ltd. ______________________________________________________________________________ _________ Contents Section 1 - Introduction Section 2 - HCDC questions 1. Does the Army have a clear understanding of how it will employ its armoured vehicles in future operations? 2. Given the delays to its programmes, will the Army be able to field the Strike Brigades and an armoured division as envisaged by the 2015 SDSR? 3. How much has the Army spent on procuring armoured vehicles over the last 20 years? How many vehicles has it procured with this funding? 4. What other capabilities has the Army sacrificed in order to fund overruns in its core armoured vehicles programmes? 5. How flexible can the Army be in adapting its current armoured vehicle plans to the results of the Integrated Review? 6. By 2025 will the Army be able to match the potential threat posed by peer adversaries? 7. Is the Army still confident that the Warrior CSP can deliver an effective vehicle capability for the foreseeable future? 8. To what extent does poor contractor performance explain the delays to the Warrior and Ajax programmes? 9. Should the UK have a land vehicles industrial strategy, and if so what benefits would this bring? 10. What sovereign capability for the design and production of armoured vehicles does the UK retain? 11. Does it make sense to upgrade the Challenger 2 when newer, more capable vehicles may be available from our NATO allies? 12. What other key gaps are emerging within the Army’s armoured vehicle capability? 13.
    [Show full text]
  • Winning the Salvo Competition Rebalancing America’S Air and Missile Defenses
    WINNING THE SALVO COMPETITION REBALANCING AMERICA’S AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSES MARK GUNZINGER BRYAN CLARK WINNING THE SALVO COMPETITION REBALANCING AMERICA’S AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSES MARK GUNZINGER BRYAN CLARK 2016 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS (CSBA) The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments is an independent, nonpartisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options. CSBA’s analysis focuses on key questions related to existing and emerging threats to U.S. national security, and its goal is to enable policymakers to make informed decisions on matters of strategy, security policy, and resource allocation. ©2016 Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. All rights reserved. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Mark Gunzinger is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Mr. Gunzinger has served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces Transformation and Resources. A retired Air Force Colonel and Command Pilot, he joined the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2004. Mark was appointed to the Senior Executive Service and served as Principal Director of the Department’s central staff for the 2005–2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. Following the QDR, he served as Director for Defense Transformation, Force Planning and Resources on the National Security Council staff. Mr. Gunzinger holds an M.S. in National Security Strategy from the National War College, a Master of Airpower Art and Science degree from the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, a Master of Public Administration from Central Michigan University, and a B.S. in chemistry from the United States Air Force Academy.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Defence in Northern Europe
    FINNISH DEFENCE STUDIES AIR DEFENCE IN NORTHERN EUROPE Heikki Nikunen National Defence College Helsinki 1997 Finnish Defence Studies is published under the auspices of the National Defence College, and the contributions reflect the fields of research and teaching of the College. Finnish Defence Studies will occasionally feature documentation on Finnish Security Policy. Views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily imply endorsement by the National Defence College. Editor: Kalevi Ruhala Editorial Assistant: Matti Hongisto Editorial Board: Chairman Prof. Pekka Sivonen, National Defence College Dr. Pauli Järvenpää, Ministry of Defence Col. Erkki Nordberg, Defence Staff Dr., Lt.Col. (ret.) Pekka Visuri, Finnish Institute of International Affairs Dr. Matti Vuorio, Scientific Committee for National Defence Published by NATIONAL DEFENCE COLLEGE P.O. Box 266 FIN - 00171 Helsinki FINLAND FINNISH DEFENCE STUDIES 10 AIR DEFENCE IN NORTHERN EUROPE Heikki Nikunen National Defence College Helsinki 1997 ISBN 951-25-0873-7 ISSN 0788-5571 © Copyright 1997: National Defence College All rights reserved Oy Edita Ab Pasilan pikapaino Helsinki 1997 INTRODUCTION The historical progress of air power has shown a continuous rising trend. Military applications emerged fairly early in the infancy of aviation, in the form of first trials to establish the superiority of the third dimension over the battlefield. Well- known examples include the balloon reconnaissance efforts made in France even before the birth of the aircraft, and it was not long before the first generation of flimsy, underpowered aircraft were being tested in a military environment. The Italians used aircraft for reconnaissance missions at Tripoli in 1910-1912, and the Americans made their first attempts at taking air power to sea as early as 1910-1911.
    [Show full text]
  • Missiles OUTLOOK
    SPECIFICATIONS Missiles OUTLOOK/ GENERAL DATA AIRFRAME GUIDANCE OUTLOOK/ POWERPLANT SPECIFICATIONS MAX. MAX. SPAN, BODY LAUNCH MAX. RANGE STATUS/OUTLOOK/REMARKS DESIGNATION/NAME LENGTH WINGS OR DIAMETER WEIGHT CONTRACTOR TYPE NO. MAKE & MODEL (FT.) FINS (FT.) (FT.) (LB.) (NAUT. MI.) AIR-TO-AIR CHUNG-SHAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (CSIST), Taoyuan, Taiwan Skysword 1 (Tien Chien 1) 9.8 2.1 0.42 196.4 — IR 1 X solid propellant 9.7 In service with Taiwan air force since 1993. Skysword 2 (Tien Chien 2) 11.8 2 0.62 396.8 — Active radar 1 X solid propellant 32.4 In service with Taiwan air force since 1996. DENEL (PTY.) LTD., Pretoria, South Africa OPERATORS SATELLITE A-Darter 9.8 1.6 0.54 195.8 Denel IIR 1 X solid propellant — Fifth-generation technology demonstrator. Likely co-development with Brazil. COMMERCIAL R-Darter 11.9 2.1 0.53 264 Denel Radar 1 X solid propellant — Development completed 2000. For South African Air Force Cheetah and Gripen aircraft. U-Darter 9.6 1.67 0.42 210 Denel Two-color, IR 1 X solid propellant — First revealed in 1988; similar to Magic. Entered production in 1994. In use on South African Air Force Cheetah and Impala aircraft. DIEHL BGT DEFENSE, Uberlingen, Germany COMMERCIAL AIM-9L/I-1 Sidewinder 9.4 2.1 0.4 189 Diehl BGT Defense IR 1 X solid propellant — Upgraded and refurbished. IRIS-T 9.7 — 0.4 196 Diehl BGT Defense IIR 1 X solid propellant — In production. SATELLITE OPERATORS SATELLITE MBDA MISSILE SYSTEMS (BAE Systems, EADS, Finmeccanica), London, UK; Vélizy, France; Rome, Italy Aspide 12.1 3.4 0.67 479 Alenia Semiactive radar, homing 1 X solid propellant 43 In service.
    [Show full text]
  • General Assembly Distr.: General 9 September 2014 English Original: Chinese/English/French/ Spanish
    United Nations A/69/124/Add.1 General Assembly Distr.: General 9 September 2014 English Original: Chinese/English/French/ Spanish Sixty-ninth session Item 97 of the provisional agenda* General and complete disarmament United Nations Register of Conventional Arms Report of the Secretary-General Addendum** Contents Page II. Information received from Governments............................................ 2 A. Index of information submitted by Governments ................................. 2 B. Reports received from Governments on conventional arms transfers ................. 3 III. Information received from Governments on military holdings and procurement through national production ............................................................. 10 IV. Information received from Governments on international transfers of small arms and light weapons ...................................................................... 19 * A/69/150. ** The information contained in the present addendum was received after the issuance of the main report. 14-60679 (E) 190914 290914 *1460679* A/69/124/Add.1 II. Information received from Governments A. Index of information submitted by Governments Background information International Procurement transfers of Views on the through small arms Register/ Data on Data on Military national and light national State Report received on exports imports holdings production weapons policies 1. Argentina 30 June 2014 nil X X nil X .. 2. Australia 28 August 2014 X nil X X X .. 3. Belgium 17 July 2014 X X X .. .. .. 4. Bosnia and Herzegovina 27 June 2014 X nil .. .. .. .. 5. Brazil 26 August 2014 X X .. .. .. .. 6. Cambodia 2 September 2014 nil nil .. .. .. .. 7. China 28 July 2014 X nil .. .. .. .. 8. Grenada 5 September 2014 nil nil .. .. .. .. 9. Hungary 5 August 2014 X X X .. X .. 10. Republic of Moldova 28 August 2014 nil nil .. .. .. .. 11. Trinidad and Tobago 2 September 2014 .
    [Show full text]
  • Gallery of USAF Weapons Note: Inventory Numbers Are Total Active Inventory figures As of Sept
    Gallery of USAF Weapons Note: Inventory numbers are total active inventory figures as of Sept. 30, 2014. By Aaron M. U. Church, Associate Editor I 2015 USAF Almanac BOMBER AIRCRAFT flight controls actuate trailing edge surfaces that combine aileron, elevator, and rudder functions. New EHF satcom and high-speed computer upgrade B-1 Lancer recently entered full production. Both are part of the Defensive Management Brief: A long-range bomber capable of penetrating enemy defenses and System-Modernization (DMS-M). Efforts are underway to develop a new VLF delivering the largest weapon load of any aircraft in the inventory. receiver for alternative comms. Weapons integration includes the improved COMMENTARY GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator and JASSM-ER and future weapons The B-1A was initially proposed as replacement for the B-52, and four pro- such as GBU-53 SDB II, GBU-56 Laser JDAM, JDAM-5000, and LRSO. Flex- totypes were developed and tested in 1970s before program cancellation in ible Strike Package mods will feed GPS data to the weapons bays to allow 1977. The program was revived in 1981 as B-1B. The vastly upgraded aircraft weapons to be guided before release, to thwart jamming. It also will move added 74,000 lb of usable payload, improved radar, and reduced radar cross stores management to a new integrated processor. Phase 2 will allow nuclear section, but cut maximum speed to Mach 1.2. The B-1B first saw combat in and conventional weapons to be carried simultaneously to increase flexibility. Iraq during Desert Fox in December 1998.
    [Show full text]
  • NSIAD-98-176 China B-279891
    United States General Accounting Office Report to the Chairman, Joint Economic GAO Committee, U.S. Senate June 1998 CHINA Military Imports From the United States and the European Union Since the 1989 Embargoes GAO/NSIAD-98-176 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 National Security and International Affairs Division B-279891 June 16, 1998 The Honorable James Saxton Chairman, Joint Economic Committee United States Senate Dear Mr. Chairman: In June 1989, the United States and the members of the European Union 1 embargoed the sale of military items to China to protest China’s massacre of demonstrators in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square. You have expressed concern regarding continued Chinese access to foreign technology over the past decade, despite these embargoes. As requested, we identified (1) the terms of the EU embargo and the extent of EU military sales to China since 1989, (2) the terms of the U.S. embargo and the extent of U.S. military sales to China since 1989, and (3) the potential role that such EU and U.S. sales could play in addressing China’s defense needs. In conducting this review, we focused on military items—items that would be included on the U.S. Munitions List. This list includes both lethal items (such as missiles) and nonlethal items (such as military radars) that cannot be exported without a license.2 Because the data in this report was developed from unclassified sources, its completeness and accuracy may be subject to some uncertainty. The context for China’s foreign military imports during the 1990s lies in Background China’s recent military modernization efforts.3 Until the mid-1980s, China’s military doctrine focused on defeating technologically superior invading forces by trading territory for time and employing China’s vast reserves of manpower.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Kansas – MQM-1A Road Runner
    MQM-1A ROAD RUNNER Max Johnson Jacob Gorman Justin Matt Steven Meis Andrew Mills Nathan Sunnarborg 6 May 2020 Team Members Team Member AIAA Number Signature Max Johnson 1069044 Co-Author Jacob Gorman 998671 Co-Author Justin Matt 985135 Co-Author Steven Meis 985214 Co-Author Andrew Mills 980191 Co-Author Nathan Sunnarborg 1069091 Co-Author Dr. R. Barrett-Gonzalez 022393 Adviser Aerospace Engineering Department ii Table of Contents 1. Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Mission Specifications & Profile ................................................................................................................1 1.2 Mission Profile ............................................................................................................................................1 1.3 Design Methods and Process ......................................................................................................................2 1.4 Conclusions and Recommendations �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������3 2. Historical Target Drone Relevant Designs ..........................................................................................................3 2.1 Orbital Sciences GQM-163 Coyote ............................................................................................................3 2.2 Lockheed Q-5/AQM-60 Kingfisher ...........................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • Adelphi Mpt'r Prince Georges County V^'~\ Maryland , R
    AURORA PULSED RADIATION SIMULATOR HAER No. MD-114 United States Army Research Laboratory, Building 500 North of State Route 212, .5 miles west of Cherry Hill Road Adelphi MPt'R Prince Georges County V^'~\ Maryland _ , r. BLACK AND WHITE PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD National Park Service Northeast Region Philadelphia Support Office U.S. Custom House 200 Chestnut Street Philadelphai, Pennsylvania 19106 HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD . > )?-$*%)} AURORA PULSED RADIATION SIMULATOR ^_ ' HAER No. MD- 114 Location^ United States Army Research Laboratory, Building 500, north of State Route 212, . 5 miles west of Cherry Hill Road, Adelphi, Prince Georges County, Maryland UTM Coordinates: 18.330730.4322210 Date of Construetion: 1969-1971 Present Owners; United States Army [Infrastructure] Defense Nuclear Agency [Simulator] Present Use: Decommissioned; Simulator Disassembled Significance: The Aurora Pulsed Radiation Simulator was the first gamma radiation simulator of its size and capacity built in the world. The simulator achieved a new plateau of nuclear effects simulation, able to test complete weapons electronics packages critical for both strategic and tactical nuclear weapons design. During the first half of its life, the Aurora Simulator primarily served military agencies and contractors in testing the warheads of intercontinental ballistic missiles [ICBMs]; during the second half of its life, the facility expanded its technical capabilities to test the hardening of very large finished systems, such as those for satellites. Project Information: During 1995-1996, the Aurora Simulator is being disassembled inside its reinforced- concrete infrastructure. Removal of three- quarters of the capacitors in the Marx tank occurred in early 19 95, with shipment to Arnold AFB, Tennessee, for reuse in the simulator Decade.
    [Show full text]
  • Jacques Tiziou Space Collection
    Jacques Tiziou Space Collection Isaac Middleton and Melissa A. N. Keiser 2019 National Air and Space Museum Archives 14390 Air & Space Museum Parkway Chantilly, VA 20151 [email protected] https://airandspace.si.edu/archives Table of Contents Collection Overview ........................................................................................................ 1 Administrative Information .............................................................................................. 1 Biographical / Historical.................................................................................................... 1 Scope and Contents........................................................................................................ 2 Arrangement..................................................................................................................... 2 Names and Subjects ...................................................................................................... 2 Container Listing ............................................................................................................. 4 Series : Files, (bulk 1960-2011)............................................................................... 4 Series : Photography, (bulk 1960-2011)................................................................. 25 Jacques Tiziou Space Collection NASM.2018.0078 Collection Overview Repository: National Air and Space Museum Archives Title: Jacques Tiziou Space Collection Identifier: NASM.2018.0078 Date: (bulk 1960s through
    [Show full text]
  • Missilesmissilesdr Carlo Kopp in the Asia-Pacific
    MISSILESMISSILESDr Carlo Kopp in the Asia-Pacific oday, offensive missiles are the primary armament of fighter aircraft, with missile types spanning a wide range of specialised niches in range, speed, guidance technique and intended target. With the Pacific Rim and Indian Ocean regions today the fastest growing area globally in buys of evolved third generation combat aircraft, it is inevitable that this will be reflected in the largest and most diverse inventory of weapons in service. At present the established inventories of weapons are in transition, with a wide variety of Tlegacy types in service, largely acquired during the latter Cold War era, and new technology 4th generation missiles are being widely acquired to supplement or replace existing weapons. The two largest players remain the United States and Russia, although indigenous Israeli, French, German, British and Chinese weapons are well established in specific niches. Air to air missiles, while demanding technologically, are nevertheless affordable to develop and fund from a single national defence budget, and they result in greater diversity than seen previously in larger weapons, or combat aircraft designs. Air-to-air missile types are recognised in three distinct categories: highly agile Within Visual Range (WVR) missiles; less agile but longer ranging Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missiles; and very long range BVR missiles. While the divisions between the latter two categories are less distinct compared against WVR missiles, the longer ranging weapons are often quite unique and usually much larger, to accommodate the required propellant mass. In technological terms, several important developments have been observed over the last decade.
    [Show full text]